Never underestimate the role of cell culture supernatant!

Share

Copy the link

Cryptococcus is an example of a perfect fungal pathogen, able to colonize, infect and survive in a whole spectrum of organisms including plants, protists, animals and humans. Over millions of years, natural selection has honed its fitness to allow it to overcome host defences and flourish as an intracellular pathogen. That was my first impression about this fungal pathogen three years ago when I joined Prof. Robin May’s lab at the University of Birmingham and when I was introduced to the hypervirulent strain of Cryptococcus gattii. This strain was the case of the Pacific Northwest outbreak of cryptococcosis, which led to many deaths of otherwise healthy humans and animals and caused ripples of fear in North America in 2001. Extensive work since then has shown that this fatal pathogen uses a spectrum of mechanisms to allow it to grow extremely rapidly within mammals. One of these is ‘division of labour’, a strategy in which a subpopulation of dormant ‘guardian’ fungal cells protects other fungi in the population, allowing them to proliferate.

‘Wow, an altruistic pathogen!’ I thought and immediately started wondering how these cells communicate in order to coordinate this response. Do they need to be in close proximity (e.g. in the same host cell) and how do they send messages to each other? I then read two publications by Rodrigues et al. (2008) and Peres da Silva et al. (2015) where the authors showed that extracellular vesicles (EVs) produced by C. neoformans contain RNA and proteins associated with virulence. The idea that EVs can serve not only as rubbish bags but also as virulence bags for long distance communication between different cells inspired me to look at this in the context of these virulent strains.

As a complete novice to the field of EVs, I was initially overwhelmed by the number of methods I was not familiar with and how technically challenging they were. However, after 13 hours of painful EV isolations (Figure 1) we had our first promising results, suggesting that EVs from outbreak strains might be able to trigger virulence in less infectious strains.

Figure 1. EV isolation was performed from 5 day old cultures of C. gattii strains. a. India ink staining of cells from 5 days old cultures of the hypervirulent strain R265 and low virulent strain ICB180. Scale bar: 10 μm. b. Ultracentrifuge tube with a tiny EV pellet stained with an orange/red-fluorescent lipophilic dye DiI.

Long hours spent alongside a motivated Masters student, Marta Arch Sisquella, together with discussions with our local EV expert Dr Paul Harrison and attending some well-timed EV conferences (UKEV and ISEV) gave us some insights how to deal with fungal EVs. Although cryptococcal EVs do not contain typical exosomal tetraspanins like CD9, CD63 and CD81, and therefore they could not be confirmed using standard methods, we managed to confirm the presence of EVs in our samples by electron microscopy and NanoSight, and finally by immunostaining using antibodies which recognize capsular polysacharide GXM. That raised another question – are these really EVs or simply shed capsule (Figure 2)?

By using EVs isolated from an acapsular mutant of the outbreak strain, we found that EVs lacking capsular material were still able to enhance survival of non-outbreak strains. Finally, we tested several combinations of infections with different strains to demonstrate that EV communication is highly specific…in other words, the EV “bullet” can only be used if the recipient strain has the matching “gun”.

Now, of course, some big questions remain. What is the composition of these EVs? How are they exchanged by cryptococcal cells? What is the mechanism of EV-stimulated proliferation? Ultimately, we hope that finding answers to these questions might help us develop therapies to target EVs and, in that way, neutralise this part of the fungal armament.

In general, the enteric microbiota composition is relatively stable due to the ongoing competition of bacterial members for space and nutrients. Newly arriving bacteria hardly find an empty niche and sufficient nutrients to thrive and colonize. Shortly after birth, however, this situation is markedly different. The neonate is born sterile and newly incoming bacteria can easily find a place and nutrients to stay and colonize the neonate's intestinal mucosa. Notably, it is generally thought that this process is mainly driven by exposure to bacteria derived e.g. from the mother of the environment.
But is that really true? If only the environment determines the microbiota composition couldn't that go terribly wrong? Shouldn't we expect that host factors influence the emerging microbiota ensuring a beneficial bacterial composition?

This community is not edited and does not necessarily reflect the views of Nature Research. Nature Research makes no representations, warranties or guarantees, whether express or implied, that the content on this community is accurate, complete or up to date, and to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability is excluded.

Please sign in or register for FREE

Sign in to Nature Research Microbiology Community

Register to Nature Research Microbiology Community

The Nature Research Microbiology Community provides a forum for the sharing and discussion of ideas and opinions about microbiology. Through posts, discussion, image and video content, the community space can be used by members to communicate with each other, and with editors, about topics ranging from the science itself through to policy, society and day to day life. It is also a place to learn more about the activities of Nature Microbiology's editors and the policies and practices of the journal.